Quote:
Originally Posted by tmoneynegro
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Then you would be completely wrong on that point. He's trying to force us to accept the TZVZ, not similar to regular EQ at all resist system.
|
Null has already said that he wants to implement it, have people try it, and get feedback about it. He did
not say that we're receiving some permanent changes to the resist system. I'm not trying to single you out and argue with you just because you tried to issue a counterpoint to my post, but the facts just don't agree with what you're saying. Implementing changes in a beta phase for testing and feedback seems completely rational and acceptable; there's nothing being "forced" onto the players for release at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmoneynegro
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
There's no guessing for how it affects PvP, we already played it on TZVZ. It plays like a completely different game and is nothing like EQ classic.
|
Well, Null's formulas are supposedly not straight copies from TZVZ, but that remains to be seen. If the play-testing reveals that the changes (whether they're just like TZVZ, very similar, or completely different) are detrimental to the goal of providing a classic feel for PvP, I'm sure they'll change it. Sure, you have a right to be concerned about similarities to TZVZ, but fanatically opposing the testing of a new system during a
beta phase is a bit inappropriate.
As a beta tester, it's your (voluntary) job to test the changes and report how they affect the game. After testing, answer: Which of the changes specifically bring the server further from classic PvP? Which ones seem to be a move in the right direction? What other approaches might be useful to consider in the task of bringing the server closer to a recreation of EQ classic? We should all be here to engage in reasonably polite, logical, constructive discussions so that we can all benefit from a high-quality end product. We should all feel free to voice our concerns, but keep them in check, given that we're discussing proposed changes to be tested in a beta version.
I think people in general can sometimes forget that beta does work toward a release date, but not in a completely linear sense. There is not a measurable amount of progress that can necessarily be completed within a set time frame. The time required to test and review the effects of a particular change can be estimated pretty accurately, but the time required to actually identify the "correct" change for something cannot be known. Sometimes, the most progress you can get out of a week is finding out that another option doesn't work. Not every change is put in because it is known to be desired in the end product.
We're baking a delicious cake from scratch, and adjusting the recipe. Some iterations of the cake are better than others, but on the whole, it's improving. The cake isn't perfect yet, but the good news is that we get to taste-test a lot of cake in the meantime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmoneynegro
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Lol, well open your eyes because it just happened. Why do you think there are so many angry posts.
|
Your leaps in logic make me wonder if I might be responding to a troll post right now, but I write this anyway for the people who are genuinely concerned about this matter. And if you're not trolling, I hope you will not be so defensive as to take offense to my response. It's meant as admonishment, not scolding, and I'm just trying to help everyone here to adopt a healthier, more rational outlook on things.
TL;DR? Another helpful link for you:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publ...yths_facts.pdf